[Wikipedia-l] Re: Public Library of Science GFDL Compatible

Thu Oct 30 23:17:31 UTC 2003

Andre Engels wrote:
> As far as I know, this is not true. Creative Commons only allows spreading
> under the same license, not with more or less rights. Since the GNU/FDL is
> not the same license, it is not allowed to go from CC to GNU/FDL - or vice
> versa.
> 
> I'd love it if someone proved me wrong, and either showed that there is a
> loophole (intended or unintended) that can be used and/or could get the
> "those licenses require basically the same things but in different wording,
> so no harm is done by cross-licensing" argument into something that would
> be juridically valid.

There is not single "Creative Commons" license. The project allows you
to pick the attributes you want, and then gives you a license that
covers them. In the case of the PLoF, they have only chosen to require
attribution. A summary of their license is here:
http://www.plos.org/journals/license . It allows modifications for any
purpose, and since they have not opted for a copyleft clause, derivative
works can be released under any license, including the GFDL.

That said, we still probably won't be able to include much. PLoS
publishes journals, and journals publish new research. As an
encyclopedia, it is beyond our scope to publish research that has not
yet gone through extensive peer review.

Stephen G.